Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: States and Situations

[martin]

Deasr Robert,

No, the issue is very serious. The Dimension is ultimately determined by 
the procedure.
"Height with box open" is not a label, but the very type of dimension. 
This is not a work around.
It is a substantial understanding of what a dimension is. "height" is 
not a dimension. It has not verifiable identity condition.


Using P2 has type must never be interpreted as "little regard", but as a 
need for further standardization.
But I am sorry I do not see a way to formalize in another way the 
potential complexity of measurement procedures. When they become 
comparable, they must be categorical, and then they form a type. If you 
cannot agree on standard measurement procedures, you cannot compare 
results, isn't it? At least my understanding as an experimental 
physicist by education;-)


All the best,

martin


On 3/4/2017 10:35 μμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Thanks Martin :)

If I understand correctly, both the type of dimension (height vs width) and the 
state of the object being measured (lid-open vs lid-closed) would both end up 
as external P2_has_type URIs?

_:h a Dimension ;
   label “Height of the box with the lid open” ;
   has_type  ,  ;
   has_value 14 ;
   has_unit  .

And as the width doesn’t change depending on  or  ness:

_:w a Dimension ;
   label “Height of the box with the lid open” ;
   has_type  , ,  ;
   has_value 8 ;
   has_unit  .
   
It seems a little jarring to have a core museum activity being treated with (from my perspective) little regard, compared to some of the existing distinctions made between classes with very little practical value. When the  and  URIs are not understood, let alone the unit URI, the only thing the ontology actually captures is the value… and as E60 can be a string, there’s not all that much value (ha!) there either.


When the answer to all questions is “Just put it in P2”, doesn’t that give one 
pause that P2 is so broad as to be meaningless?

Rob


On 4/3/17, 12:16 PM, "martin"  wrote:

 Dear Robert,
 
 The standard way to describe this in the CRM is to type the Dimension

 with the procedure:
 a) Lid-open
 b) Lid-closed
 
 The Measurement procedure type can be documented by a detailed text.
 
 In biology, one would measure "wingspan at life" and "winspan dead" of a

 bird, etc.
 
 Best,
 
 martin
 
 On 3/4/2017 7:13 μμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:

 > Dear all,
 >
 > One of our use cases which we are having trouble modeling with just the 
core CRM ontology is measurements of an object in a particular state.  For 
example, we would like to record the measurements of a chest with the lid open, 
rather than those with the lid closed.  It is the same object, just in two 
different states, resulting in different measurements.
 >
 > The proposed scope note does certainly clarify more than the rather 
terse original, but if there is any feedback or guidance as to the above 
situation, we would be greatly appreciative.
 >
 > Many thanks,
 >
 > Rob
 >
 
 --
 
 --

   Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
   Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
 |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
   |
 Center for Cultural Informatics   |
 Information Systems Laboratory|
  Institute of Computer Science|
 Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
   |
 N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece   |
   |
   Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
 --
 
 




--

--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   Center for Cultural Informatics   |
   Information Systems Laboratory|
Institute of Computer Science|
   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
 |
   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece   |
 |
 Web-site: 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scholarly Reading.

[martin]

Dear Simon, All,

Your comments well taken, just to clarify what CRM Inf intends to do:

It does never aim at replacing scholarly and scientific inferencing by 
an automated machine. Its sole purpose is to document the steps of 
scholarly inferencing, provenance and dependencies of knowledge used and 
created. Any use of logic to automate the transition from premises to 
conclusions would be documented as a use of a tool. In particular, it 
does not aim at simplifying the scholarly process, only at explicating 
assumptions and intermediate steps to the degree they are an apparent 
stage at which other actors would take up results and continue. The CRM 
is not an AI endeavor.


Personally, I do not regard that scholarly inferencing can 
comprehensively be described in an adequate manner by any formal logic, 
at least for the next years to come.


What I have proposed, does not simplify inference. It just describes a 
frequent case, in which the propositional interpretation of a piece of 
text in regarded as unambiguous, but the truth of the propositional 
content is subject to an inference. The construct I propose just models 
this premise. It assumses, that necessarily any scholar making such an 
inference, must have an explicit believe about the provenance and 
authenticity of this piece of text, and that his conclusions will depend 
on the truth of this provenance assumption.


CRMInf so far had no construct to describe such a premise in a comapct way.

I did not make any statement about how the provenance assumption has 
been achieved, nor what its precise form is, nor that scholarly reading 
does not imply questioning the propositional interpretation, which would 
be just a case just not modelled here. Nor did I make any statement 
about the following kind of inference.


The simplification is only in the complexity of the model for cases in 
which defaults are known to hold, here, that the propositional content 
of the text has not been questioned by the actor making the inference. 
It is a sort of shortcut.


But the same construct can also be used as a conclusion about the 
propositional content of a piece of text.


We can never, in a realistic information system, be explicit about all 
steps of argumentation. We have to rely heavily of defaults. When 
starting reading a manuscript or inscription, a process of endless 
details starts until we come to sets of alternative propositional 
interpretations. Most of these cases can only effectively be described 
in form of explications to otherwise implicit arguments. The art will be 
to find out which series of arguments can reliably be documented in an 
implicit way, and how later details can be added without creating a 
non-monotonic representation.


If anybody still regards this as an attempt to simplify inferences, I'd 
like to be pointed to my errors:-)


All the best,

Martin

On 4/4/2017 9:25 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:

A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term /factoid. /
/
/
1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated 
questions that any attempt to simplify inference without explicating 
them separately is likely to have problems.  The issue might involve 
epistemic modal logics; doxastic logics (which usually are 
paraconsistent); justification logics; context logics; speech acts; 
quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other fun stuff.


It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using 
something like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming 
operator (that)). Like CL, it's first order with quantification over 
predicates.


2. The term /factoid/ has a second sense in US English, referring to a 
something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely 
dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB.


The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I 
translate the first sense to be "a belief  justified solely by a 
single writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the 
writing either  believed the factoid to be false, or believed that 
they did not know the factoid, though that could be definitional. This 
sense of factoid seems to be not JTB,  even if it is accidentally 
true, and the form of the publication would normally be justification. 
 [NB: not equating JTB and /knowledge] /


Simon

On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta" 
> wrote:


Dear All,

Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model:

http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/#


Best

Francesco


Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit :

Dear All,

My colleague Athina found the following paper:
Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and
computer ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist
Computing 2015; 30 (1): 86-97.

It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scholarly Reading.

[Anaïs Guillem]

Dear all,
following the discussion during the sig meeting, here is the link to the 
diagrams representing the conversation with the Nero’s example that can be used 
for HW:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kLy--Qf3mCoLMYxE264ihiIXUgXSLkWzqFTad8weVcI/edit?usp=sharing
 


Feel free to comment 
Best,
Anaïs

> Le 4 avr. 2017 à 21:25, Simon Spero  a écrit :
> 
> A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term factoid. 
> 
> 1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated questions that 
> any attempt to simplify inference without explicating them separately is 
> likely to have problems.  The issue might involve epistemic modal logics; 
> doxastic logics (which usually are paraconsistent); justification logics; 
> context logics; speech acts; quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other fun 
> stuff. 
> 
> It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using something 
> like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming operator (that)). 
> Like CL, it's first order with quantification over predicates. 
> 
> 2. The term factoid has a second sense in US English, referring to a 
> something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely 
> dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB. 
> 
> The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I 
> translate the first sense to be "a belief  justified solely by a single 
> writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the writing either  
> believed the factoid to be false, or believed that they did not know the 
> factoid, though that could be definitional. This sense of factoid seems to be 
> not JTB,  even if it is accidentally true, and the form of the publication 
> would normally be justification.  [NB: not equating JTB and knowledge] 
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta" 
>  > wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model:
> 
> http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/# 
> 
> Best
> 
> Francesco
> 
> Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit :
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> My colleague Athina found the following paper:
>> Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and computer 
>> ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist Computing 2015; 30 
>> (1): 86-97. 
>> 
>> It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I tried to 
>> formulate as "Reading" ? 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference model for 
>>> the case in which the interpretation of a text as a proposition is not 
>>> questioned, but other things are questioned:
>>> 
>>> A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a questioned fact, 
>>> such as Nero singing in Rome when it was burning. I think Tacitus states he 
>>> was singing in Rome, and another source says he was on the countryside.
>>> 
>>> B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation = 
>>> translation of sense
>>> 
>>> C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the Merchant of 
>>> Venice, place details are mentioned that only a person who was there could 
>>> have written that. Shakespeare was not allowed to travel abroad.
>>> C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of Buddha's 
>>> speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages that present 
>>> past-Buddha dogmata. 
>>> 
>>> I would start with A), then B), then C)
>>> 
>>> So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a proposition, 
>>> which is not believed as such.
>>> Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to express this 
>>> proposition. This implies that the premise does not make any sense without 
>>> a provenance assumption, which must be believed. 
>>> 
>>> In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His good will 
>>> to say the truth about Nero not.
>>> In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective edition/name or 
>>> pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned.
>>> In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first performance is 
>>> not questioned, but who wrote the text under the name of Shakespeare is 
>>> questioned.
>>> In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not questioned, neither 
>>> that its content mainly goes historically back to Buddha, but the 
>>> provenance of a paragraph is questioned.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call "reading", 
>>> which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a comprehensible natural 
>>> language proposition relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does 
>>> not mean believing the proposition, nor questioning the intended meaning of 
>>> the 

[Crm-sig] Issue 311 S20 paragraph 2 revision

[Stephen Stead]

Old S20 paragraph 2

Due to this stability of form, the maximal real volume in space that an
instance of S20 Rigid Physical Feature occupies at some time within its
existence with respect to the default reference space relative to which the
feature is at rest defines uniquely a place for the feature with respect to
its surrounding matter. 

Revised S20 paragraph 2

Due to this stability of form, the maximal volume in space that an instance
of S20 Rigid Physical Feature occupies at some time uniquely defines a place
for the feature with respect to its surrounding matter. This is only true in
respect to the default reference space relative to which the feature is at
rest. 







Stephen Stead

Director

Paveprime Ltd

35 Downs Court Rd

Purley, Surrey 

UK, CR8 1BF

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Fax +44 20 8763 1739

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail   ste...@paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile  
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads

[Crm-sig] Extra A6 example

[Stephen Stead]

Eleni has sent this excellent example for A6. The problem I foresee is that it 
refers to classes from another Extension (CRMba).

 

Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail   ste...@paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile   
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads

 

From: Eleni Christaki [mailto:elechrist...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 04 April 2017 17:28
To: ste...@paveprime.com
Subject: "A6 & AP16 Examples"

 

Dear Stephen,

I send you the A6 example: 

The slabs surface (E18) that was found on the deposit (A8) on the upper storey 
(E53) and the individual slabs (E19) that were found on the deposit (A8) on the 
ground floor (E53) declared (A6) to be parts of the original paved floor (B3) 
on the upper storey (B4) of the Room 5 (B2) of the West House (B1).

The path is: 

A6 Group Declaration Event: AP16 assigned attribute to: E18 (Physical 
Thing)/E19 (Physical Object)

A6 Group Declaration Event: P141 assigned: B3 Filled Morphological Building 
Section

I remain at your disposal for any further information

All the best,

Eleni Christaki

 

 

 

[Crm-sig] Overnight homework on issue 302

[Stephen Stead]

Attempt at scope note and example revision



Stephen Stead

Director

Paveprime Ltd

35 Downs Court Rd

Purley, Surrey 

UK, CR8 1BF

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Fax +44 20 8763 1739

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail   ste...@paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile  
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads





ISSUE 302_SDS.DOCX
Description: MS-Word 2007 document